On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 12:59:09 -0700, me
wrote:
>On Sep 11, 12:20 pm, john_k...@hotmail.com (John Kulp) wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 08:34:20 -0700, me
>> wrote:
>[snip]
>> >> Second, the luggage loss rate is infintesimal even at this higher
>> >> rate. Hardly a major issue except to those unfortunates who get
>> >> theirs lost
>>
>> > 1 in 36 probably isn't going to be seen as infinitesimal.
>>
>> That's less than 3% in the first place. Factoring in 90% are
>> returned, that makes the actual loss rate is 3/10ths of one percent.
>> That's not infintesimal?
>[snip]
>
> Um, that was the LOST rate. The delayed rate for BA is higher.
>They are way out of the norm, which is where the danger lies,
>being that far out of the norm.
>
Um no it isn't. I searched for this and they compared the British
Airways rate to the US airlines ones, which I know for a fact is those
initially lost not actually finally lost. And I don't know why you
are fixated on some norm. This is a damage suit. In the US you have
to prove actual damages. It wouldn't matter if they lost 100% of the
bags. The judge would say take another airline. You're only due
compensation for actual losses. Life is tough. And to make it more
fun, the lawsuit was filed in Federal court not state court, which
they would have to do to try for a class action suit. Problem is,
Federal courts are known to be more favorable to defendants than
plaintiffs in these cases.
These guys will be very lucky if they don't end up having to pay BA's
legal costs for a frivilous suit, which is what happened in the DC
case. |